Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: I gotta go ?

  1. #1
    whl626 is offline Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Interested in Language
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Malaysia
      • Current Location:
      • Malaysia
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default I gotta go ?

    This word ' got ' has been confusing me for a long time. Is it against the rule of grammar since ' got ' is the past tense of ' get '. Why I never hear people say ' I get to go now ' ?

  2. #2
    RonBee's Avatar
    RonBee is offline Moderator
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Other
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    16,571
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: I gotta go ?

    Quote Originally Posted by whl626
    This word ' got ' has been confusing me for a long time. Is it against the rule of grammar since ' got ' is the past tense of ' get '. Why I never hear people say ' I get to go now ' ?
    I get to go would mean the same thing as I am allowed to go. I got to go is pretty much the same thing as I've got to go, but it is, I think, more emphatic. Certainly, it is informal speech.

    :)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Hello :D

    That was a great answer. Thank you for that. I would just like to add, if I may, that there are several speculations regarding the sentences like "I got to go" and "I've got to go", which differ in pronunciation but express the one and the same meaning.

    It's been noted by many non-native English speakers in many forums, that native English speakers have a tendency to omit the [v] sound of present perfect verb forms. For example,

    "I've got to go."
    "I got to go."

    Some speculate the reason for this has to do with principles of ease of articulation; that it's more economical to say "I got" than it is to say "I've got". Others speculate the reason has to do with what's called paradigmatic regularization: present perfect verb forms are slowly merging with simple past verb forms.

    The reason for this merger is speculative at best given we are dealing with language in the midst of change. Some say it has to do with the fact that speaker have a tendency to omit time markers needed to distinguish the present perfect from the past simple. For example,

    I've made dinner. It's on the table. Come and get it.
    I made dinner. It's on the table. Come and get it.

    Compare:

    I have made dinner *yesterday. (ungrammatical)
    I made dinner yesterday.

    The tendency to omit time markers that serve to distinguish the present perfect from simple past is passed down to young speakers. After time, the function of the present perfect becomes fuzzy and subsequently is lost altogether.

    At the present time in the history of the English language we are seeing language in change, right before our very eyes and ears.

    All the best, and thank for the opportunity to participate in your discussion forum. Thank you. :D

    Casiopea

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Sorry

    I tried to "edit" my post but was unable to do so.

    Here is what I wanted to edit:


    English speakers have a tendency to omit the [v] sound of past perfect verb forms.

    English speakers have a tendency to omit the [v] sound of present perfect verb forms.

  5. #5
    RonBee's Avatar
    RonBee is offline Moderator
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Other
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    16,571
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    All your observations make sense to me. :)

    *altogether*

    I gotta go now. Talk to you later.

    :wink:

  6. #6
    Tdol is offline Editor, UsingEnglish.com
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • Philippines
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    43,003
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Casiopea
    Sorry

    I tried to "edit" my post but was unable to do so.

    Here is what I wanted to edit:


    English speakers have a tendency to omit the [v] sound of past perfect verb forms.

    English speakers have a tendency to omit the [v] sound of present perfect verb forms.
    Some Chinese students of mine this summer said that they just couldn't hear English people saying 'can' in connected speech- to them, it was so unstressed as to be inaudible.

  7. #7
    RonBee's Avatar
    RonBee is offline Moderator
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Other
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    16,571
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdol
    Quote Originally Posted by Casiopea
    Sorry

    I tried to "edit" my post but was unable to do so.

    Here is what I wanted to edit:


    English speakers have a tendency to omit the [v] sound of past perfect verb forms.

    English speakers have a tendency to omit the [v] sound of present perfect verb forms.
    Some Chinese students of mine this summer said that they just couldn't hear English people saying 'can' in connected speech- to them, it was so unstressed as to be inaudible.
    Were those "English people" British?

    • "You can do it."
      --Denise Austin


    :wink:

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Can you? Kin you?

    Some Chinese students of mine this summer said that they just couldn't hear English people saying 'can' in connected speech- to them, it was so unstressed as to be inaudible.
    A wonderful observation!

    Based on my knowledge of that particular topic the story goes like this: "can", pronounced as [kae:n], can undergo what's referred to as process of regressive assimilation, whereby the low front long vowel [ae:] rises to a high front reduced vowel [I], as in "kin". The process is as follows: (Note: the terms "high, low, front and back" refer to the position of the tongue in the oral cavity).

    low front /ae/ becomes high front [I] before high back [k].

    I [kae:n] swim.
    I [kIn] swim.

    It's the reduced vowel [I] that's the culprit. It's not part of the Chinese language's system of sounds. That's not to say Chinese speakers will never be able to hear [I]. Rather, it just takes time like everything else.

    If you try stressing [kIn] for your students you'll find that they will still have problems identifying the sound [I]. Reduced vowels cannot be stressed. So, what ends up happening is that sonorous [n] becomes stressed instead. That is, students hear [kInnnnnn].

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    70
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Hi Casiopea,

    I have followed your last post and repeated "can" about 20 times myself as an English native speaker. I think you are right my pronunciation is far more I [kIn] swim than the "so called" correct I [kae:n] swim. However as with much in regard to pronunciation a large amount of this type of discussion is also merged/clouded surely by accent ?

    In the U.K there are a huge number of different accents that I myself simply struggle to understand!!!!! Some words which appear as to the Chinese students in an earlier post, being simply inaudible! I cannot say that they are wrong in their pronunciation because to people of a certain region it is correct and they are of course right!!!!!!

    Much of this comes I think from the deep seated view that BBC World Service English is and was proper English and any deviation is paramount to treason!!!!! This is of course rubbish but it is amazing how much you still see and hear comments to this notion in the U.K!

    I also wonder how much of any langauge when two native speakers talk to each other has elements that are compensated for by the brain, simply because we are so used to hearing the sounds?

    Sadly, that which should be always has to make way for that which is, with so many more people throughout the world embracing it, English appears to be changing at such an alarming rate I think you will see more and more simplified speech structure/emphasis and less which is tied to grammatical rules of correctness!!!


    Regards



    Alex

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default language in change

    That was beautifully expressed.

    I also wonder how much of any langauge when two native speakers talk to each other has elements that are compensated for by the brain, simply because we are so used to hearing the sounds?
    Ooh. Now that's definitely an immoveable feast for the mind. The eatin' & disgestin' are going to take me some time, though, before I feel confident enough to respond.

    English appears to be changing at such an alarming rate I think you will see more and more simplified speech structure/emphasis and less which is tied to grammatical rules of correctness!!!
    I'm in full agreement with you there; however, I would like to add one thing for the sake of food for thought:

    Structures which appear to be free from constraints (e.g. specifically the kind of so-called ungrammatical structures like "I got to go") still adhere to rules, yet those rules, unlike those deemed by prescriptivists, may be in the process of change (a "Grammar at work" sign posted here) due to the inefficiency of the present system. That is, what appear to be ungrammatical structures/unacceptable English may in fact be a sign of efficient systems at work. Today's simplified speech/ungrammatical structures/unacceptable English will be tomorrow's etymological findings if it proves efficient. Simplified speech will undoubtedly and eventually become the more preferred mode among its users in the future, simply because it offers its users a more efficient means of communication.

    Dare I say, Darwin should'[v] b[I]n a Linguist. :D

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Something's gotta give
    By beagle in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-Jun-2004, 00:14
  2. Use of "Gotta"
    By Anonymous in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 28-Mar-2004, 19:11
  3. got = have got? gotta = have got to?
    By Anonymous in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 26-Feb-2003, 17:23

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •